The problem with the gun rights crowd

[5whiskey]

We need more Libertarians on our side.

(sheepishly raises hand) I think we have every Libertarian on our side of this issue. As a matter of fact, we have the CATO Institute (THE primary Libertarian think-tank) to thank for DC v. Heller.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IIRC. the Libertarian VP candidate (whom I won't bother to look up) was pretty rabidly antigun and didn't know squat technically about guns.

[reteach]

Aguila Blanca said

They ALL want to ban all guns.

WE get upset when THEY lump all of us together in one pigeonhole. Maybe we should avoid doing the same to them.

I don't care whether they're Libertarians or Democrats or Republicans or Antimacassars, we gun rights people should try to respectfully teach and convince them to at least respect and preserve the right keep and bear arms. Maybe along the way we also convert some of them into gun nuts.

[PhotonGuy]

Don't be fooled. They ALL want to ban all guns. To whatever extent they may appear to disagree, the disagreement isn't over what the endgame is, it's only a question of "Do we go after the guns incrementally, or do we go after everything at once?"

That would definitely apply to some, maybe even most of the people in the gun control crowd but I wouldn't say it would apply to all of them. There are some people in the gun control crowd who even own guns themselves. Why would somebody want to ban ALL guns when they themselves have got guns? They might want to ban some guns, kinds they don't own, but to say they want to ban all guns would be inaccurate especially if they've got guns themselves.

I once saw a case of a man buying a shotgun in Japan. Japan has among the strictest gun control in the world but it is possible to legally get a shotgun in Japan by going through a very long and very difficult screening process. While getting the shotgun the man said that it was a tool that can end somebody's life and as such should be heavily screened, so while he was definitely in favor of the long and difficult procedure he was going through he was not for banning all guns, even in Japan, otherwise he wouldn't've gotten the shotgun in the first place.

[PhotonGuy]

Maybe along the way we also convert some of them into gun nuts.

Once you go down that path there's no turning back.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, the Japanese government’s screening will eventually fail and they’ll give a ahotgun to the wrong guy. And when they do, they’ll do the same thing New Zealand did - instead of acknowledging their bureaucratic error, they’ll take his shotgun - whether he wants shotguns banned or not.

And he won’t be able to do anything about it politically (just as NZ gun owners couldn’t or wouldn’t) because the same screening he supported to make it harder for people to own a gun also acts to make gun owners politically insignificant by reducing their overall numbers to where they don’t matter in a democracy.

[PhotonGuy]

The thing is, the Japanese government’s screening will eventually fail and they’ll give a ahotgun to the wrong guy. And when they do, they’ll do the same thing New Zealand did - instead of acknowledging their bureaucratic error, they’ll take his shotgun - whether he wants shotguns banned or not.

And he won’t be able to do anything about it politically (just as NZ gun owners couldn’t or wouldn’t) because the same screening he supported to make it harder for people to own a gun also acts to make gun owners politically insignificant by reducing their overall numbers to where they don’t matter in a democracy.

Apparently there already is lots of gun crime in Japan, not with legally owned guns but with illegally owned and obtained guns. The numbers you see might be very small in studies but Japan under reports so the actual numbers would be much higher than those you would see in studies.

[44 AMP]

The numbers you see might be very small in studies but Japan under reports so the actual numbers would be much higher than those you would see in studies.

Some time back it became known to a few people, outside of Japan that there was a kind of murder so common to their society it wasn't even listed by them as a crime!! Basically a family member, usually the head of the household, flips out from stress and murders the family, then himself with the family sword, or some edged weapon, even a kitchen knife. (it has a specific name, though I no longer remember what it is..)

IT got a brief mention in the "western press" apparently because Japan had finally decided to start counting them as crimes.

We have also learned that Great Britain, under-reports certain crimes. They have a rather unique way of doing it with murder. From what I've heard, if there is a murder and they don't solve it, or even have a suspect, its not reported as a murder, just as an "unsolved crime".

A couple of decades back, when one of the big gun control groups was "Handgun Control, Inc." they put out "statistics" about "death of a child due to a handgun". It was a frightening large number.
After a few years of this number being thrown around as if it were fact, a "defector" from their group made public what information went into making that number.

Everyone under the age of 25 was classed as "a child"
It included not just murder, but also suicides, criminal on criminal killings and people the police shot in the line of duty. And it was those people shot with anything, not just handguns.

After this became known, Handgun Control, didn't apologize, didn't make any correction, did offer a retraction, or anything like that, they just stopped using that particular number...

"lies, damn lies, and statistics" isn't just an empty quote...

[Tony Z]

There is no middle road for a person that opposes firearms of any kind. For example, I had a HR manager work for me for a short period of time. He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy". I asked why. He responded he wanted my employees to feel safe. I asked if there had been a problem. He replied no, but that he also did not want to have one, hence the need for the policy. I asked if having a policy would keep a person that wanted to shoot another, from bring a firearm to my plant, with them. He said he could not answer, but want others to feel safe. Again I asked if there had been an issue and again he replied no. I replied that he should look at the books on the shelves in my office and think for a moment, if I would agree with his ill-perceived need.

Several weeks later, he was discharged, with cause, for an unrelated issue.

[PhotonGuy]

There is no middle road for a person that opposes firearms of any kind. For example, I had a HR manager work for me for a short period of time. He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy". I asked why. He responded he wanted my employees to feel safe. I asked if there had been a problem. He replied no, but that he also did not want to have one, hence the need for the policy. I asked if having a policy would keep a person that wanted to shoot another, from bring a firearm to my plant, with them. He said he could not answer, but want others to feel safe. Again I asked if there had been an issue and again he replied no. I replied that he should look at the books on the shelves in my office and think for a moment, if I would agree with his ill-perceived need.

Several weeks later, he was discharged, with cause, for an unrelated issue.

You're from Pennsylvania aren't you? Somebody with an attitude like the HR manager you described has no place in the Keystone State.

[Tom Servo]

He came into my office and said we needed a "no gun policy".

In the late 1980's, we had a few workplace shootings that got quite a bit of publicity. Handgun Control Inc. and the Violence Policy Center capitalized on the phenomenon. They contacted the Human Resources departments of countless major companies and informed them that they could be next if they allowed guns in the workplace. That's when we started seeing a cascade of bans.

Throughout the following decade, they went further and distributed literature that warned companies about the dangers of having employees who owned guns at all.

Plain fact is, they were convincing, the effort was pervasive, and it's decades old. The propaganda is so ingrained at this point, most companies assume that not having a "no guns" policy is asking for catastrophe.

[Tony Z]

Yes DuBois, Pennsylvania. The HR guy presented his case like a zombie: "we need to do this, to have a safe workplace". I asked him if he ever owned a gun, and he stated a Model 88 Winchester, but he no longer hunts or otherwise shoots it. Ironically, his daughter lives in DC, and I questioned him if he ever worried about her safety, and he replied "why should I?".

A

[PhotonGuy]

Yes DuBois, Pennsylvania. The HR guy presented his case like a zombie: "we need to do this, to have a safe workplace". I asked him if he ever owned a gun, and he stated a Model 88 Winchester, but he no longer hunts or otherwise shoots it. Ironically, his daughter lives in DC, and I questioned him if he ever worried about her safety, and he replied "why should I?".

Are you kidding? DC is one of the most crime ridden places in the USA.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I used to work for a company that was very 2A friendly. People would have ammo and CMP stuff delivered to the loading dock, everybody was armed, etc.

The company eventually got big enough it put out an HR manual on company policy that included a no guns at work clause. Since the CEO was the biggest gun guy in the office I asked him why that was in there and he said it was necessary to get better insurance rates and some of our customers wanted to see certain clauses in our HR policy when we bid stuff. Not many customers; but the ones that did were huge multinationals.

So they made no guns company policy in the HR manual and everybody just kept doing what they’d been doing.

[44 AMP]

A company I used to work for had a subcontractor do a "safety analysis" study. There was a big push at the time, to be safer at work, and in our personal lives (so we'd be better workers or something, I guess...)

There was a survey questionnaire, asked all kinds of things about the work, and the way we did it, planned it, etc. Also asked about personal life things, did we wear seatbelts, drive no more than 5mph over the speed limit regularly, that kind of thing. Included a question about had we, or a family member been in a fight within the last year. There was not one question that mentioned firearms at all in any way. NONE.

When their results came back, among the list of suggestions to improve safety was "avoid handguns".

I went to management about that. Not as a gun rights thing, but as a BUSINESS thing. My argument was found valid and it went up the chain, to the top, I heard. And they agreed with me. Making a recommendation about something they never asked about called ALL of their conclusions into question. That survey company did not get any other contracts from us, again.

[TailGator]

I am a business owner and I have never had an insurance company ask about firearms policy. Maybe I am too small and they ask larger firms, but I wonder if insurance companies don't get more blame than they earn in this.

[Tony Z]

I have had my own business since 1989, and through the past 30 years have had, maybe, a half dozen different insurance carriers. I have never had a "safety analysis survey", for our business policies. We have also had multiple workers compensation carriers, and though each is active in helping us achieve a safe workplace, not once has one asked about a firearms policy.

I do have to add, that this past Wednesday was my yearly physical, and my doctor went through the "safety question" list, albeit very quickly, checking off responses pretty much before I gave them.

[44 AMP]

It probably doesn't happen much in the "real world". The company I was working for was working on contract for the FED, and they were the ones who required the "study".

A very similar study was done a couple years later, by a DIFFERENT study outfit, and unlike the first company, didn't seem to have an axe to grind about guns.

[Tony Z]

I have to add to my post #67, that my doc (30 something young lady) when questioning about firearms in my house, phrased the question to something like "if you own firearms, are they locked or inaccessible to be accidentally picked up?".

I'm going to be 67 this September, and in retrospect, I experienced many more things than I ever thought possible. In eight grade shop class, building a muzzleloader was an optional project. Many kids had guns in their vehicles for after school hunting. Many of us always had knives with us at all times. But then again, this was NW Pennsyltucky!

Also, back to my doc, my father didn't ever tell me a whole lot about life, but he did give me a great piece of advice: he said no one like going to the doctor, but he said it really helps to have a good looking woman doc, especially one with long slender fingers.

[44 AMP]

when questioning about firearms in my house, phrased the question to something like "if you own firearms, are they locked or inaccessible to be accidentally picked up?".

That's a question I would answer with "N/A".

If they want to assume that means "not applicable" that's their problem.

for me, and that question, it means I'm "Not Answering"

Years ago I worked with a fellow named Norm Anderson. A lot of the work involved checklists where the person doing the task had to initial a blank, indicating the task was done, and who did it.
Norm loved doing that, it drove auditors nuts.

[kmw1954]

I have been trying very hard to stay out of the fray.

A couple of comments and feeling on this subject and I'll shut up again.

As for the NRA I have to continue to ask, Who is the NRA? Sorry but the NRA is not the Leadership. It is each and every single member and contributor. Just as with Political Parties the members do not always agree with the leaders. And those that insist the NRA is a gun pushing organization are flat out LIERS. The NRA has not sold a single gun as far as I know. The NRA is a group of people no different than NAACP, SPCA, PETA or MADD.

THIS IS WHAT GETS ME INTO TROUBLE.

Gun forums and many of their reaction and treatment of discussions on gun issues when it bleeds over into the political. Sorry but yes Gun issues get very political and as a community deeply involved in the gun realm just Where is it that we are to hold these discussions on All gun issues? Including the Political ones? I understand that the Administrators and Moderators do not want the arguing and bickering that comes from these discussions, and it's not just here, it's found on about all the gun forums. But w/o and open and fair exchange of ideas how are we to organize and fight back? I can have different ideas, feelings or opinions and still stay friendly and not get combative.

Lastly on a few forums that allow general discussions I frequently see stories posted on recent events that may involve shootings. I feel horrible when I hear these stories and then the way they are reported. My opinion is that no matter what the circumstance anytime there is a shooting and someone is hurt it does not reflect well on any of us gun owners. The anti's will always view it as another senseless shooting and another example why guns need to be outlawed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The answer about our content is very simple. This is a gun forum and the primary focus is on gun technical issues. Given that sometimes laws and civil rights issues impact ownership, we allow discussion of issues, sometimes wandering into the political, that are relevant.

Pure politics is not the goal of the forum. It was shut down once because of the ranting and bickering of pure politics. The same goes for religion and sexuality. Those topics led to extreme views, hatred, bigotry, insults, etc.

Thus, it is a free market place, if you want a forum that discusses gun politics as well as general politics, they exist.

Moderators do this as volunteers. We get nothing except the feeling that we are helping folks with gun issues. If someone wants to discuss Chik-fil-a, atheism, you are a socialist/nazi dog - we don't want to have to moderate that and you can go elsewhere for that.

[kmw1954]

Glenn I understand the reasoning behind the rules and accept them w/o hesitation. Not trying to stir the pot or anger anyone. Not trying to bash any forum either, though maybe some members that take the debate to personally or get to riled and cannot converse civilly. I certainly do not want this to be a pure political gun debate site either. That would get old and serve little purpose and could see that turning into a which reloading press debate.

So far you guys are doing a very good job of finding a level balance and I applauded you all for that. Agreed that the religious or sexuality discussions are irrelevant unless it can be linked to maybe a self defense situation were that may be an underlying factor.

I do believe though that gun law discussions are relevant to gun community forums and that as adults these discussions should remain civil and on topic and the Moderators or Administrators shouldn't have to step in to break things up or restore order. That we should be able to maintain a decorum and not act like children. That we should be able to disagree w/o turning into idiots.

[44 AMP]

we should be able to disagree w/o turning into idiots.

We should.

Some fail at that, or worse, don't even try to get there to begin with.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

All too often I will see members in gun forums argue over stuff. We should treat each other with courtesy and respect if we want to win the war on gun rights.

Thing is, those arguments never change the mind of pro gun folks against gun rights. No harm, no foul. But sometimes our attitudes, aggressive mindset and heavily over used memes turn off folks neutral to gun control/rights. These are the folks that pose the most risk and/or, may give us the support we need to keep our rights. Gun owners and anti-gunners are both minorities. It takes those folks neutral to guns to make either of us a majority. Most chest pounding pro-gun folks forget that.